Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutResolution 96-3500 Rejection of Claim by Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack1 1 RESOLUTION NO. 96 -3500 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY: 1) DENYING A CLAIM AND 2) REJECTING A REQUEST FOR LATE CLAIM FTT,F,D BY ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK (ON BEHALF OF ABALO ET AL) ON OR ABOUT APRIL 10, 1996, RELATING TO CLAIMS RELATING TO OPERATING INDUSTRIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: SECTION 1. The City Council fmds that heretofore (on or about April 10, 1996), Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack filed on behalf of Claimants "Abalo et al" a claim for damages against this City (inter alia). SECTION 2. The City Council further fmds that each, every and all of such claims are untimely and filed too late under Section 911 et seq of the California Government Code which allows only six months within which to file such claims. specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. specifically: any and all claims based on trespass were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress were filed more than six moths after such claim was known to claimant in September of 1994. specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance were filed more than six months after such claim was known to claimants in September of 1994. generally any and all other claims set forth in said filing relate to claims which are outlawed by any and all claims procedures, local, state or federal. SECTION 3. The Council further fmds that claimants' petition to file a "late Claim" (under Government Code §945.4/946.6 is not justified under applicable statutory and case law, in that: Claimants have not shown any reason (mistake, inadvertence, etc) as to why such claim could not have been filed within the statutory period; claimants have pressed damage claim against other parties to Operating Industries site as early as September 1994 (if not prior thereto); the claim is not made without any explanation for delay as required by G.C. 911.4/911.6. This City has been prejudiced by the additional delay because the gravamen of the litigation involves matters more than thirty years duration; the facts and evidence to be adduced was already faint and now becomes more so; settlements have been entered into which were global in scope on the basis that (as represented) no such claims would be filed; and it would be prejudicial to require this City to re -enter the fray at this late date. SECTION 4. The Council further fmds that such claim (and any and all of its sub - parts) involves threatened litigation barred under the applicable statutes of limitation (usually one; not more than three years), within which such litigation must be filed, as follows: Resolution No. 96 -3500 Page 2 each, every and all of such claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations. specifically: any and all claims based on assault charges are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. specifically: any and all claims based on trespass are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. specifically: any and all claims based on intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. specifically: any and all claims relating to negligence are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. specifically: any and all claims based on ultra hazardous activities are barred by the applicable statutes and laws relating thereto. specifically: any and all claims relating to public and/or private nuisance are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. generally: any and all other claims set forth in said filing relate to litigation outlawed by any applicable statutes of limitations, local, state or federaL SECTION 5. Accordingly, said Claim is rejected as: a) field too late, and b) involving litigation which is now barred by applicable statutes. Said Petition to file a "late Claim" is denied based on: a) not filed within a reasonable period, b) laches demonstrated by the Claimants, and c) prejudice to this City by unnecessary delay. SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall notify the Claimants (and all relevant other parties of this action) of the actions taken herein, together with such other information as may be required in G.C. 911.3(b), 913(b), 911.4, and Hasty v. Co. L.A. 61 CA3d 623 @ 626 and Han v. Pomona 43 CR2d 616; Munoz 33 CA4th 1767; and Mancini v. Aerojet 1996DJDAR 3856. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 7th day of May, 1996. ATTEST: amity 61erk 4i.125' MAYOR I, City Clerk of the City of Temple City, hereby certify that the foregoing resolution, Resolution No. 96 -3500, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: AYES: Councilman - Breazeal, Budds, Souder, Wilson NOES: Councilman -None ABSENT: Councilman- Gillanders EtyCK77/11L k /71,4zt, 1 1 1